WHY 21 MILLION BITCOIN CANNOT SERVE THE WHOLE WORLD

[o_e_l_e_o]

If you believe that then why do you still mention dollars

Because the majority of merchants, businesses, companies, services, etc. do not currently accept bitcoin, and so often we must (unfortunately) convert to fiat to spend our coins.

and still comparing the price of BTC based on dollar and all that?

Because the price fluctuates. There are very few places which offer goods or services at a flat bitcoin rate for an extended period of time. All services I use online update their rates in real time against the exchange rate to fiat, and the services I use in person generally either update their rates daily or generate an exact rate at the time of transaction.

These problems are both solved with widespread adoption. With widespread adoption, the need to convert back to fiat is reduced or removed as we can spend bitcoin directly with more merchants, and the price will reach a level of stability, which will reduce or remove the need to also think in terms of a variable fiat value.

[1715424854]

1715424854

[1715424854]

1715424854

[deisik]

But once you convert your coins to fiat, you need to deposit the resulting fiat in your bank account. I am not sure how much it is going to cost, but I suspect that it is much more expensive than the exchange fees and on top of that this process can take a few weeks to complete.

Then that is a problem with the fiat banking system. If you are paying fees to deposit fiat in your accounts, then you'll also be paying those fees when depositing fiat customers have paid you with.

Why should I care as long as I'm not made to pay for it?

Because your initial point was "bitcoin is too expensive". Bitcoin is actually far cheaper for merchants to use than credit cards. If more people understood this, then it could help adoption

Okay, let's rephrase myself

And put more emphasis on "Bitcoin is too expensive for the end users". Really, what difference does it make if it is cheaper for merchants but buyers are still not going to use it anyway and partly because it is too costly for them to transact with it (it is not the only reason but yet a significant one)? Further, I can't really grasp how understanding this could potentially help adoption. Will such understanding inexplicably make transactions cheaper? Care to explain?

It is not merchants who have the say in these matters. It is buyers. So if buyers want to pay with credit cards (or otherwise), merchants will readily pay these excessive fees to Visa and its likes.

It goes both ways. If credit card companies suddenly put their processing fees up to 10%, you can bet merchants would either stop using them, or make prices more expensive for using credit cards, regardless of what the customer wanted

They are not fools, and we shouldn't expect them to make rash moves that will cost them dear

[iMark]

You think it cant serve the whole word because the supply is only 21m but the number of world population is over billions but but the 21m supply does not mean that will remain on those 21m people because most of them are going to sell thier btc in which other unholder of btc can also hold a btc  . currently more btc are already mined out but many people have buy and sold btc

doesn't mean 1 person is 1 btc right? there is a smaller bitcoin fraction like satoshi mbtc and many other, yeah I realize that 21 million is a very small amount for all people in the world, but does that make prices higher and that's what many investors want?there are many other alternative coins after all?

[o_e_l_e_o]

Really, what difference does it make if it is cheaper for merchants but buyers are still not going to use it anyway and partly because it is too costly for them to transact with it

Because I reject the notion that it is "too expensive to transact with". With bitcoin, I can pay someone $100 for a couple of cents. I can pay someone $10,000 for a couple of cents. I can pay someone $1 million for a couple of cents. That is hardly "too expensive" for the buyer. Some fiat transactions are free for the buyer, sure, but some, such as large payments which need approval from your bank or cross border payments, will slap ridiculous fees on top, far more than that which is charged with bitcoin. For the merchant, there is just no comparison. It's free to open a bitcoin wallet and accept bitcoin, but you could end up paying hundreds or even thousands of dollars in fees in the fiat system.

That's without even touching on all the other benefits of bitcoin, such as being faster, protection from chargeback, privacy, no KYC, no third party telling you what you are and are not allowed to spend your money on, and so forth.

I think if more people realized the advantages of bitcoin over the fiat system, then yes, it would help adoption.

[deisik]

Really, what difference does it make if it is cheaper for merchants but buyers are still not going to use it anyway and partly because it is too costly for them to transact with it

Because I reject the notion that it is "too expensive to transact with". With bitcoin, I can pay someone $100 for a couple of cents. I can pay someone $10,000 for a couple of cents. I can pay someone $1 million for a couple of cents. That is hardly "too expensive" for the buyer

The devil is in paying precious attention to detail (not my phrase but I like it)

First, to begin with, you don't pay a few cents for a transaction unless you are willing to wait a couple days till your transaction finally gets confirmed (I've done that and it doesn't work good). Further, most everyday expenses are below 100 dollars per purchase even in the US (it is easy to figure out why), so even a few extra cents for a cup of tea may look or feel not as appealing as paying nothing above the price tag

Apart from that, those who send 1M dollars don't particularly care about transaction costs, while even with wire transfers there is an upper limit on fees, which rarely exceeds a few (dozen) dollars (pretty much like your few cents per Bitcoin transaction). And if you are not money-laundering or doing some other nasty stuff which may land you in jail, fiat transactions can be more attractive, especially if your goal is to move fiat, not coins

That's without even touching on all the other benefits of bitcoin, such as being faster, protection from chargeback, privacy, no KYC, no third party telling you what you are and are not allowed to spend your money on, and so forth

As a buyer and consumer, I would definitely prefer chargeback rather than protection from it

I think if more people realized the advantages of bitcoin over the fiat system, then yes, it would help adoption

Most people are living paycheck to paycheck and often in debt at that, so those advantages (even if they are real) are of no advantage to them (pardon the pun). And that is not going to change in the foreseeable future

[o_e_l_e_o]

First, to begin with, you don't pay a few cents for a transaction unless you are willing to wait a couple days till your transaction finally gets confirmed (I've done that and it doesn't work good).

That's just not true. I frequently pay transaction fees of a couple of cents and get confirmed within the hour or even quicker. And as I said before, an unconfirmed bitcoin transaction is still harder to reverse than an unconfirmed credit card transaction.

Further, most everyday expenses are below 100 dollars per purchase even in the US (it is easy to figure out why), so even a few extra cents for a cup of tea may look or feel not as appealing as paying nothing above the price tag

Well, for transactions like buying a cup of coffee you can use Lightning Network. Pretty much instant and feeless, but still with all the extra benefits bitcoin brings over fiat.

Apart from that, those who send 1M dollars don't particularly care about transaction costs, while even with wire transfers there is an upper limit on fees, which rarely exceeds a few (dozen) dollars (pretty much like your few cents per Bitcoin transaction).

There are far more fees to consider than just the transfer fee. If you want to move a million dollars internationally, then you are looking at bank fees, lawyer fees, transfer fees, exchange fees, commission fees, and so forth. These can easily add up to several thousands dollars lost. Bitcoin has none of these.

[deisik]

First, to begin with, you don't pay a few cents for a transaction unless you are willing to wait a couple days till your transaction finally gets confirmed (I've done that and it doesn't work good).

That's just not true. I frequently pay transaction fees of a couple of cents and get confirmed within the hour or even quicker. And as I said before, an unconfirmed bitcoin transaction is still harder to reverse than an unconfirmed credit card transaction

You had it coming

Further, most everyday expenses are below 100 dollars per purchase even in the US (it is easy to figure out why), so even a few extra cents for a cup of tea may look or feel not as appealing as paying nothing above the price tag

Well, for transactions like buying a cup of coffee you can use Lightning Network. Pretty much instant and feeless, but still with all the extra benefits bitcoin brings over fiat

Here we go again

Last time I checked 1ml.com (truth be told, I just looked into it), it didn't show any improvement at all in Lightning Network adoption. Actually, the network capacity went significantly down over the last few months. I remember its peak at over 1k bitcoins (still a minuscule amount itself), and now it's at 837 BTC. That gives us a strong push toward the conclusion that Lightning Network is as good as dead so far

Apart from that, those who send 1M dollars don't particularly care about transaction costs, while even with wire transfers there is an upper limit on fees, which rarely exceeds a few (dozen) dollars (pretty much like your few cents per Bitcoin transaction).

There are far more fees to consider than just the transfer fee. If you want to move a million dollars internationally, then you are looking at bank fees, lawyer fees, transfer fees, exchange fees, commission fees, and so forth. These can easily add up to several thousands dollars lost. Bitcoin has none of these

As long as you don't leave the crypto domain, Bitcoin is an excellent device to move around piles of wealth in a smooth and efficient manner. You can't argue with that (neither can I). But things change dramatically when you decide on cashing out, and then your expenses may skyrocket and easily add up to thousands of dollars spent on conversion and withdrawal fees. So it is a moot point given that you can't do without fiat in today's world. But if you try, the premiums you will have to pay will be extreme

And that is an underestimation

[o_e_l_e_o]

Last time I checked 1ml.com (truth be told, I just looked into it), it didn't show any improvement at all in Lightning Network adoption. Actually, the network capacity went significantly down over the last few months. I remember its peak at over 1k bitcoins (still a minuscule amount itself), and now it's at 837 BTC. That gives us a strong push toward the conclusion that Lightning Network is as good as dead so far

Not at all.

Yes, the capacity has dropped recently. No, that isn't a cause for concern. Over the first part of the year, lnbig.com funded and opened channels to every public node, causing the big increase in capacity. They recently started closing down channels to inactive nodes, which has caused the recent decrease. It's also possible people removed funds from channels to trade as bitcoin's price climbed from $4k to $12k.

Why is this not concerning? Two reasons. Firstly, the only numbers we are tracking here are public nodes. These public nodes are generally used to route your payment through to reach its final destination. We don't know how many private nodes there are, which include the most commonly used Lightning wallets such as Eclair. It is likely there are far more private nodes than there are public ones. Secondly, capacity is not the same as volume. Capacity is needed to route a transaction, but says nothing about the number of transactions or volume of BTC being moved through LN.

[deisik]

Why is this not concerning? Two reasons. Firstly, the only numbers we are tracking here are public nodes. These public nodes are generally used to route your payment through to reach its final destination. We don't know how many private nodes there are, which include the most commonly used Lightning wallets such as Eclair. It is likely there are far more private nodes than there are public ones. Secondly, capacity is not the same as volume. Capacity is needed to route a transaction, but says nothing about the number of transactions or volume of BTC being moved through LN

Why do I have a feeling that some bias is at work here?

So you basically assume that since we don't know the real number of Lightning Network nodes, this number must be huge. To me, this is a loose assumption. Further, even if you agree that capacity is not the same as volume (the point which I agree with too), it does in fact say nothing about the number of transactions or the amount of bitcoins being moved using this capacity. The meaning being that there can as easily be none (or next to none). Assuming otherwise, and otherwise being a multiple of that capacity, seems even more far fetched to me

The bottom line is that we don't know the real situation other than what we see at 1ml.com. But what we know for certain is that Lightning Network is not widely used where it is expected to be used, i.e. in places like cafés, pubs, bars, maybe even brothels, and similar institutions. This is what counts in the end as Lightning Network is supposed to fix the innate problems which prevent Bitcoin from being used as a means of payment (read, private nodes are completely inconsequential). But if it is still not used for that, how can Lightning Network actually help here?

[o_e_l_e_o]

But what we know for certain is that Lightning Network is not widely used where it is expected to be used

It isn't widely used yet. That doesn't mean it is somehow broken or dysfunctional. Lightning is pretty much still brand new in the grand scheme of things, and adoption takes time.

This is what counts in the end as Lightning Network is supposed to fix the innate problems which prevent Bitcoin from being used as a means of payment

It does. Lightning is still in beta, but can still be used now, and is instant and near feeless. It is working well. Adoption will come.

[deisik]

But what we know for certain is that Lightning Network is not widely used where it is expected to be used

It isn't widely used yet. That doesn't mean it is somehow broken or dysfunctional. Lightning is pretty much still brand new in the grand scheme of things, and adoption takes time

Well, this is not what I meant

The problem is not with Lightning itself but rather with "the grand scheme of things" as you put it. In other words, even if it is brutally efficient on its own (fees and all), it can't further something when there is nothing to further. You see, there are only 21M bitcoins and given that, why would folks want to spend their precious coins? No way if you ask me

In this manner, OP is technically right, though not for the reasons stated. Bitcoin is inherently deflationary (despite its total supply still increasing), and no Lightning Network is going to change that. Long story short, people don't spend gold, digital or otherwise. That's why it can't serve the world as it is more like the world is to serve Bitcoin

[scambust]

When we talk of bitcoin supply, we look at it as 21 million bitcoin, and people wonder how that can serve the whole 7 billion population, but we forgot that there are smaller units of bitcoin, we have the mbtc, we have the ubtc and we have the satoshi, and i will like to talk on the satoshi which i believe needs to be expanded to really serve the current economy.

SATOSHI,
This is the smallest units of bitcoin, and 1 bitcoin is equals to 100,000,000 satoshis, which means that the total satoshi that we have is 2100 thrillion satoshis.

The total circulating money of the world according to According to the Bank for International Settlements is 80 trillion dollars, the lowest denomination of usd is cent and 100 cent equals 1 dollar, so we have 8000 trillion cent circulating as money in the world, if satoshi is to be pegged to 1 cent and to be used as global currency, you see why it is necessary to have it expanded, because circulating money of the world will be short of about 5900 trillion satoshis.

That is why right now the Bitcoin community should start adopting mBTC or milli-bitcoin. 1 mBTC is $10.10 today. One satoshi is still less than one US cent so I think everyone can still own bitcoins, just in the lower decimals.

[o_e_l_e_o]

You see, there are only 21M bitcoins and given that, why would folks want to spend their precious coins? No way if you ask me

But people do spend their coins. I spend bitcoin several times a week. There are people who receive their salary I'm bitcoin, and so have no choice but to spend large amounts of their coins. The number of merchants accepting bitcoin is growing. Why would bitcoin credit card cards and payment processors even exist if there was zero demand for them? Just because you don't want to spend your coins (which is fine - totally your choice), doesn't mean everyone else shares that view.

Adoption is what drives growth. Without adoption, there is only baseless speculation. Speculating gives surges to $20k, sure, but it also gives huge drops to $3k. Adoption gives sustainable proce growth. Once adoption grows enough, the price will stabilise, and holders like yourself will be more likely to start using bitcoin as it was intended - as a currency.

[muhhentuhhen]

You think it cant serve the whole word because the supply is only 21m but the number of world population is over billions but but the 21m supply does not mean that will remain on those 21m people because most of them are going to sell thier btc in which other unholder of btc can also hold a btc  . currently more btc are already mined out but many people have buy and sold btc

doesn't mean 1 person is 1 btc right? there is a smaller bitcoin fraction like satoshi mbtc and many other, yeah I realize that 21 million is a very small amount for all people in the world, but does that make prices higher and that's what many investors want?there are many other alternative coins after all?

To avoid the threat of inflationary depreciation, the creators of Bitcoin initially laid down the principle of a limited number of virtual coins. Their total number will never exceed 21 million. So, people start thinking that it will be not enough for the whole of mankind. It is not true.
First, the price and value of Bitcoin will be growing all the time, and secondly, each BTC can be split to Satoshi.

[deisik]

You see, there are only 21M bitcoins and given that, why would folks want to spend their precious coins? No way if you ask me

But people do spend their coins. I spend bitcoin several times a week. There are people who receive their salary I'm bitcoin, and so have no choice but to spend large amounts of their coins. The number of merchants accepting bitcoin is growing. Why would bitcoin credit card cards and payment processors even exist if there was zero demand for them? Just because you don't want to spend your coins (which is fine - totally your choice), doesn't mean everyone else shares that view

Let me guess

People who receive their salary in bitcoins, first have to convert the coins to dollars (or whatever) before they can actually spend them. In this way I also spend some coins every week, then buy back when the price turns sufficiently around (a lifehack, you can live off that difference if your volume is high enough). The same story goes with Bitcoin credit card cards and payment processors - merchants are still accepting fiat only, end of story. If that relates to you as adoption, I think you have to reconsider your perspective

Further, you can assess almost anything either by its presence as well as absence or by the presence as well as absence of something else. As we see that Bitcoin's volatility doesn't subside (in fact, it has been at pretty high if not to say record levels recently), there is no plausible reason to believe or expect that the real adoption is indeed rising. And while I totally agree with you that the only way to stabilize prices is to make speculation irrelevant (the thing I've been telling here for years), the reality can't be ignored unless you deliberately choose so

And the next bottom line in this series of posts is that whenever given a choice, people will hoard their coins and spend fiat instead (as per famous Gresham's Law). Obviously, if you don't have that choice, Bitcoin becomes your only option and recourse. But that's not the case with most people apart from completely unbanked ones and deprived of a fiat income source at that. Hence no way people are going to spend Bitcoin en masse

[o_e_l_e_o]

If that relates to you as adoption, I think you have to reconsider your perspective

I wasn't using that as an argument to say adoption is widespread; I was using that as argument that people spend their bitcoins. And I spend bitcoin directly with merchants who accept them several times a week. Incidentally, one of these merchants is a local small business who I spoke to about using bitcoin several times, and now they do. If you want to see adoption, then go out and create demand for it.

And the next bottom line in this series of posts is that whenever given a choice, people will hoard their coins and spend fiat instead (as per famous Gresham's Law).

Totally incorrect. If given the choice, I would pay with bitcoin 10 times out of 10.

I think the issue here is that you are assuming that everyone is a holder like you, who is only interested in accumulating more. There are also plenty of people like me who are keen to spend their coins and support bitcoin's growth whenever possible.

[carter34]

From the discussion above, I think the world shouldn't be in chaos for bitcoin to spend. One reason for now is that there is no general adoption yet.
Two, even if bitcoin or cryptocurrency is replacing fiat, bitcoin isn't the only cryptocurrency existing. Meaning other crypto will be adopted and made relevant to support, follow the crypto usage and circulation.
Three, then we know that bitcoin has many other smaller units , 100,000,000 satoshi gives us just one bitcoin

[deisik]

If that relates to you as adoption, I think you have to reconsider your perspective

I wasn't using that as an argument to say adoption is widespread; I was using that as argument that people spend their bitcoins

It is a difference that makes the difference, right?

The point being that even if you didn't mean it that way, it still resonated like adoption is anything including what actually constitutes a fiat payment. More specifically, you may think like you are paying with crypto while your coins simply get converted to fiat in the process. And how is it different from you converting crypto to fiat yourself and then spending the proceeds? I don't know about you, but to me, conceptually, it is six of one and half a dozen of the other

And I spend bitcoin directly with merchants who accept them several times a week. Incidentally, one of these merchants is a local small business who I spoke to about using bitcoin several times, and now they do. If you want to see adoption, then go out and create demand for it

Yes, I understand your pains

But you can't really expect people to go out and demand cryptocurrency payments. People want adoption, I mean real adoption, but they don't want to do anything to that effect themselves, i.e. to actually promote such adoption. If things were different, we would have already been there by now. But since we are not, that instantly sends us back to square one (read, no adoption of crypto as a full-fledged and self-sufficient means of payment)

And the next bottom line in this series of posts is that whenever given a choice, people will hoard their coins and spend fiat instead (as per famous Gresham's Law).

Totally incorrect. If given the choice, I would pay with bitcoin 10 times out of 10.

I think the issue here is that you are assuming that everyone is a holder like you, who is only interested in accumulating more. There are also plenty of people like me who are keen to spend their coins and support bitcoin's growth whenever possible

I'm not a holder, and far from being one

I'm more of a trader type (if that makes any difference in your internal hierarchy of the cryptocurrency folk), so crypto for me is like capital. Well, it is indeed working capital for me and spending it is a big fat no. If I didn't have a fiat option, I would be forced to spend coins, of course (as I sometimes still do in the way described above), but other than that, it is the last thing that I would willingly do

[Vishnu.Reang]

That is why right now the Bitcoin community should start adopting mBTC or milli-bitcoin. 1 mBTC is $10.10 today. One satoshi is still less than one US cent so I think everyone can still own bitcoins, just in the lower decimals.

I'd go for mBTC. Satoshi is having very low value now and I don't want it to become the unit in which the prices are denominated. But we need to create a name for mBTC, just like we have Satoshi. And we need to create a unique, short name. There have been proposals to rename mBTC as BitCent and BitPenny, but I don't like those names. Let's have something unique.

[NavI_027]

[snip]

I'd go for mBTC. Satoshi is having very low value now and I don't want it to become the unit in which the prices are denominated. But we need to create a name for mBTC, just like we have Satoshi. And we need to create a unique, short name. There have been proposals to rename mBTC as BitCent and BitPenny, but I don't like those names. Let's have something unique.

Guys why some of you are eager to change how we call bitcoin? Is really a big deal and an important thing to discussed with? Actually, for me, "bitcoin (btc)" was already okay enough. For me it doesn't really matter since converting of units are not so hard to do so .